The principle of least action calls into question atmosphere warming by CO2

Could Fermat’s theorem and the principle of least action apply to the atmosphere’s response to increasing CO2? And show that a vast energy expenditure to heat atmosphere and ocean, is contrary to these laws? In other words, call into question whether increasing the trace gas CO2 really does heat the ocean and atmosphere.

The principle of least action states that the universe will choose the path between two states that minimises the action. This principle is a generalisation of Fermat’s theorem which requires light to take the path between two locations that minimises the travel time.

The principle of least action can be extended to any system evolving between two states. It is the founding assumption behind Noether’ theorem that is required to explain why Einsteinian relativity does not break conservation of energy.

Amalie Emmy Noether (she preferred the name Emmy) was a German mathematician who was born in 1882 – 13 years after my grandfather. In that time she was (sadly and inevitably) under-recognised as a female academic, but made important contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics that later would grow further in importance in cosmology and quantum physics.

Noether’s theorem is fundamental. It allows calculation of the true conserved quantities for any system that is evolving according to the principle of least action. (As long as we can identify the system’s symmetries.) Noether’s theorem is used in both cosmology and quantum physics.

Maybe the principle of least action could apply to atmospheric thermodynamics. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air increases. How will the atmosphere’s state evolve as a result? Conventionally we are told that the atmosphere’s response to a small increase in this trace gas is to summon up vast quantities of energy to increase the temperature of both atmosphere and ocean. This is an enormous thermodynamic response to this tiny trace gas perturbation, that transgresses the principle of least action.

However, a response by the system rearranging its structure, changing for instance water vapour content or the emission height, or adjustment of convection or even radiative interactions, could lead the system toward a new equilibrium with much less expenditure of energy. And thus fulfil the laws of least action, Noether’s and Fermat’s theorems. Miskolczi’s hypothesis was of this nature – a rearrangement of the emission structure without temperature change.

On the other hand, response to the tiny adjustment of CO2 amount by heating up the whole atmosphere and ocean, is the exact opposite of what one would expect in fulfilment of the principle of least action. It’s the principle of most action, and most (empty) heat and noise.

Comments from WUWT:

Tom Abbott

“Maybe the principle of least action could apply to atmospheric thermodynamics. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air increases. How will the atmosphere’s state evolve as a result? Conventionally we are told that the atmosphere’s response to a small increase in this trace gas is to exert vast quantities of energy to increase the temperature of both atmosphere and ocean. This is an enormous thermodynamic response to this tiny trace gas perturbation, that transgresses the principle of least action.”

The enormous response is supposed to come from water vapor. Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are supposed to cause an increase in water vapor and water vapor is what is supposed to overheat the Earth.

So far, no significant increase in water vapor is seen and no tropospheric “hotspot” has been seen to develop, which is a requirement of the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) speculation.

Alarmist predictions are not coming to pass.


Wim Röst:

After initial warming the system adapts, probably in a way to search the way of ‘least action’. Always trying to stay close to ‘equilibrium point’ in which already many forces together created ‘equilibrium temperature’. An equilibrium temperature which will not change much by a change in just one single item. Because all other forces will react.

 

Gary Pearse

Phil S: You probably are familiar with Le Chatelier’s Principle in chemistry formulated in the latter half of the 19th Century. It became recognized after his death as having a much broader application and being properly a ‘law’.
From Wiki, the broader statement of it is

“When a settled system is disturbed, it will adjust to diminish the change that has been made to it”

That is to say the system resists changes from applied new temperature, pressure, volume and composition. One could equally say the principle is present in Newton’s laws of motion. If I push on a stone wall it pushes back, not budging until I exceed the ‘bending’ strength of the wall. Or ‘back-EMF’ in electric motors. Similarly in economics if we increase price, demand declines and this leads to a supply surplus, resisting the price increase.

This doesn’t seem to be distinct from Noether’s and Fermat’s theorems.

This homeostasis also appears to apply in climate with increased CO2 in the atmosphere stimulating its sequestration in plants, ocean lifeforms, and solution into seawater diminishing substantially CO2s direct warming effect and the feedbacks attributed to it. Morever photosynthesis is endothermic, a sequestration of the heat from the sun

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s